Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Durant Hard 10/25 -1.4
Sengun 12/19 +7.1
Thompson 8/16 -1.2
Holiday Hard 3/10 +0.1
Smith Jr. Hard 3/9 -1.9
Sheppard Hard 3/8 +1.9
Tate Open 2/3 -0.2
Capela Open 0/2 -2.8
Okogie Hard 0/1 -1.1

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Markkanen 9/17 +3.7
Nurkić 8/15 +0.4
George Hard 8/14 +4.1
Bailey Hard 5/11 +1.3
Filipowski 4/8 +0.9
Clayton Jr. Hard 3/8 -0.1
Love 4/7 +1.3
Mykhailiuk 3/6 +1.1
Collier Hard 1/2 +1.1
Sensabaugh Open 0/2 -2.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
UTA
41/93 Field Goals 45/90
44.1% Field Goal % 50.0%
10/34 3-Pointers 14/35
29.4% 3-Point % 40.0%
33/41 Free Throws 29/38
80.5% Free Throw % 76.3%
56.3% True Shooting % 62.3%
53 Total Rebounds 63
16 Offensive 14
30 Defensive 36
27 Assists 33
2.08 Assist/TO Ratio 2.54
13 Turnovers 13
6 Steals 8
8 Blocks 4
26 Fouls 31
54 Points in Paint 48
11 Fast Break Pts 13
17 Points off TOs 12
20 Second Chance Pts 24
18 Bench Points 35
4 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Alperen Sengun
31 PTS · 8 REB · 14 AST · 38.1 MIN
+35.87
2
Lauri Markkanen
29 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 37.3 MIN
+26.52
3
Amen Thompson
23 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 37.2 MIN
+16.15
4
Jae'Sean Tate
6 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 12.9 MIN
+15.69
5
Kevin Love
11 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 15.5 MIN
+13.11
6
Keyonte George
28 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 37.1 MIN
+12.99
7
Ace Bailey
13 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 28.4 MIN
+12.6
8
Svi Mykhailiuk
10 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 26.1 MIN
+11.45
9
Kevin Durant
32 PTS · 9 REB · 5 AST · 40.3 MIN
+10.99
10
Jusuf Nurkić
18 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 24.2 MIN
+7.6
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 TEAM defensive REBOUND 125–133
Q4 0:09 MISS A. Thompson 24' step back 3PT 125–133
Q4 0:13 L. Markkanen Free Throw 2 of 2 (29 PTS) 125–133
Q4 0:13 L. Markkanen Free Throw 1 of 2 (28 PTS) 125–132
Q4 0:13 A. Sengun take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Markkanen 2 FT) 125–131
Q4 0:15 L. Markkanen REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 125–131
Q4 0:17 MISS J. Smith Jr. 26' 3PT 125–131
Q4 0:18 K. George Free Throw 2 of 2 (28 PTS) 125–131
Q4 0:18 TEAM offensive REBOUND 125–130
Q4 0:18 MISS K. George Free Throw 1 of 2 125–130
Q4 0:18 A. Thompson personal FOUL (4 PF) (George 2 FT) 125–130
Q4 0:20 A. Sengun Layup (31 PTS) (K. Durant 5 AST) 125–130
Q4 0:23 A. Thompson REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 123–130
Q4 0:26 MISS A. Sengun 25' pullup 3PT 123–130
Q4 0:31 K. George Free Throw 2 of 2 (27 PTS) 123–130

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Alperen Sengun actually won the night
31 points, 8 boards, 14 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+24.9), hustle (+10.2), and shot-making (+6.7), pushing Net Impact to +33.0.
Scoring +24.9
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +10.2
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Shot-making +6.7
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Walter Clayton Jr. too hard
8 points, 5 boards, 6 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was defense (-2.6) and turnovers (-2.4), pulling Net Impact down to -10.1.
Defense -2.6
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Turnovers -2.4
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Hustle +1.5
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
hidden value
Jae'Sean Tate's value was hiding in plain sight
6 points, 6 boards, 0 assists undersells it. hustle (+6.7), scoring (+5.0), and defense (+4.4) pushed his Net Impact to +5.4.
Hustle +6.7
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Scoring +5.0
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +4.4
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Kyle Filipowski too hard
12 points, 7 boards, 3 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-8.5) and defense (-2.9), pulling Net Impact down to -4.0.
Turnovers -8.5
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -2.9
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +0.6
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 37.3m
29
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+26.5

Elite off-ball movement and decisive finishing drove a highly productive shift. While he operated with tunnel vision as a scorer, his excellent weak-side rim rotations provided a massive defensive boost that cemented his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +22.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +8.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Keyonte George 37.1m
28
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.9

High-usage playmaking came at the cost of crippling live-ball turnovers that consistently killed offensive momentum. Despite scoring efficiently, his erratic decision-making in traffic fueled opponent fast breaks and tanked his overall net score.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +22.9
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -13.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Ace Bailey 28.4m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Smothering perimeter defense was the absolute defining trait of his performance, generating immense value on that end of the floor. He locked down primary ball-handlers through multiple screens, perfectly compensating for a somewhat streaky shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 26.1m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

Efficient spot-up shooting was overshadowed by defensive limitations that allowed opponents to score freely on his assignments. He was repeatedly hunted in pick-and-roll actions, giving back all the value he generated as a secondary floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 24.2m
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Forcing up contested looks in the paint dragged down his efficiency and allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. A sluggish defensive performance against quicker bigs ultimately pushed his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +6.6
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Struggling to anchor the paint defensively severely compromised his overall effectiveness, leading to a noticeable negative swing. Opposing guards consistently attacked his drop coverage, neutralizing the value of his floor-spacing on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +7.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
8
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.1

Poor shot selection derailed his playmaking efforts, as he forced contested floaters early in the shot clock. This inefficiency allowed the defense to pack the paint, stalling out the secondary unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 15.4m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Veteran savvy and excellent positional rebounding anchored a highly effective bench rotation. He utilized crisp outlet passes to ignite the break and held his ground firmly in the post, maximizing his value in short bursts.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.1

Playing a highly conservative brand of basketball kept him from making any meaningful offensive imprint on the game. While he navigated screens well defensively, his reluctance to attack the paint allowed the defense to rest while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

A complete disappearing act on offense shattered his usual scoring gravity, making him a liability during his brief stint. He passed up open looks and failed to pressure the defense, though active hands in the passing lanes prevented his rating from totally bottoming out.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 40.3m
32
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.5

Heavy offensive usage masked a highly inefficient shooting night that ultimately dragged down his net impact. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers resulted in 15 empty possessions, completely neutralizing his otherwise solid defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Alperen Sengun 38.1m
31
pts
8
reb
14
ast
Impact
+33.0

Operating as the ultimate offensive hub, his elite decision-making and hyper-efficient finishing yielded a massive positive rating. He consistently punished double-teams by finding cutters out of the post, while his stellar positional awareness generated significant defensive value.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +24.9
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +10.2
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 3
12
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

A brutal night spacing the floor severely limited his overall effectiveness and cratered his impact score. Missing five looks from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag into the paint, stalling the half-court offense despite his respectable effort on the glass.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Amen Thompson 37.2m
23
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.4

Slashing to the rim yielded great surface-level production, but an inability to stretch the floor kept his overall impact perfectly neutral. Opponents actively dared him to shoot from the perimeter, which bogged down spacing during crucial offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +9.2
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Reed Sheppard 23.4m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Hovering around the perimeter made him entirely one-dimensional, leading to a noticeable drop in his usual offensive influence. Because he failed to pressure the rim or collapse the defense, his minutes resulted in a stagnant second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Bleeding value on both ends of the floor, his inability to convert inside the arc severely punished the team's transition opportunities. He settled for early-clock perimeter looks rather than initiating the offense, triggering long rebounds and easy opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Incredible energy off the bench sparked a massive positive swing in a very short amount of time. Relentless work on the offensive glass and suffocating point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's second-unit rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

Failing to establish deep post position resulted in blown point-blank finishes during his short rotation. The lack of rim deterrence on the other end kept his overall rating hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.6

A brief, cardio-heavy stint yielded almost entirely negative results due to a complete lack of offensive involvement. He was consistently targeted on switches defensively, rendering him unplayable for longer stretches.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -74.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0